(23-08-2014 03:28 PM)Revenant77x Wrote: So final grade 2/10 F. He does not actually address the major issues that have been brought up here and elsewhere about this system and is relying on magic to fix the major problems. He was slightly better than the majority of Libertarian/Anarchist writers in that things were spelled correctly and he did not immediately go to "lol conspiracy" though he did hint at it a few times. Much as with any other proponent of this system he has done nothing but preach to the already converted as none of these points make even the slightest headway against the very real and persistent issues those of us who oppose such a system hold.

OK. Do you have any comprehensive philosophy or ideology that describes human nature and the need to govern ourselves? Is it Conservatism? It would help me to appraise your opposition, you hint at your worldview, which I do not have comprehensively written down. In fact, I did my best to purge myself of it, so now I'd need to re-learn it as a language I forgot.

Furthermore, what do you think of my idea of rising above social problems by freeing the market and out-producing them? Poverty is a source of social problems, higher life standard prevents a lot of them.
Also, would you agree with me that market works in much the same way as distributed computer network that solves problems?

I didn't call you pro-slavery, but way too careful towards change which in itself is dangerous. What if the present has its dangers too? What if you prevent improvement?
I meant you ask for too many guarantees in advance which in retrospect were not necessary. Which may block social change of any kind, not just abolitionism. I just couldn't think of a liberalizing social change that in retrospect should not have happened. Seems to me that liberation of pretty much anyone or anything turns out to be a good idea afterwards.

(23-08-2014 03:28 PM)Revenant77x Wrote: So final grade 2/10 F. He does not actually address the major issues that have been brought up here and elsewhere about this system and is relying on magic to fix the major problems. He was slightly better than the majority of Libertarian/Anarchist writers in that things were spelled correctly and he did not immediately go to "lol conspiracy" though he did hint at it a few times. Much as with any other proponent of this system he has done nothing but preach to the already converted as none of these points make even the slightest headway against the very real and persistent issues those of us who oppose such a system hold.

OK. Do you have any comprehensive philosophy or ideology that describes human nature and the need to govern ourselves? Is it Conservatism? It would help me to appraise your opposition, you hint at your worldview, which I do not have comprehensively written down. In fact, I did my best to purge myself of it, so now I'd need to re-learn it as a language I forgot.

Furthermore, what do you think of my idea of rising above social problems by freeing the market and out-producing them? Poverty is a source of social problems, higher life standard prevents a lot of them.
Also, would you agree with me that market works in much the same way as distributed computer network that solves problems?

I consider myself to be a utilitarian but I have a definite liberal swing. I am also way more libertarian than you would guess (it is only to those that would scrap the entire system that I am considered a statist) On those Political grids I tend to be in the lower left-hand of the lower left hand quadrant, just above the anarchists funny enough). I think government should only do what it needs to do and nothing more. I am not a fan of the nanny state in any means, if you want to use drugs or eat fat so be it not for the government to decide, but I do think you need to counteract the corporate faction with an entity that is beholden to the people. Sadly right now the corporate interests seem to be gaining ground due to a traitorous Supreme Court, this being in America of course. I tend to favor Scandinavian approaches as they have the best result (always at the top of those lists of best places to live, lowest crime, best standard of living, least unemployment etc) however if you can show a better system that scales up as well as theirs does then you could convince me.

I didn't call you pro-slavery, but way too careful towards change which in itself is dangerous. What if the present has its dangers too? What if you prevent improvement?
I meant you ask for too many guarantees in advance which in retrospect were not necessary. Which may block social change of any kind, not just abolitionism. I just couldn't think of a liberalizing social change that in retrospect should not have happened. Seems to me that liberation of pretty much anyone or anything turns out to be a good idea afterwards.

Pick a less incendiary example then, because for all intents and purposes you did compare me to the pro-slavers.

As to your point here, no I am asking how you achieve the current level of protection under your system. Honestly the fact that the Abolition movement had no plan for Negro employment is why it took 100 years after the civil war for them to gain equal rights. Repeating the same mistakes over and over is not productive.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote: America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense

(23-08-2014 09:19 AM)Luminon Wrote: No, there's not. I have not said anything about repressed memories. What I am concerned about are clear memories, but without the original emotional background to go along with them. When people laugh about being chased and beaten by someone thrice as big and angry, or when they brag about "my dad used to beat the shit out of me and look, I turned out fine", that's what I mean.
Why do you think the horror movies are so popular? Most of us were in such situations, that was our experience and the horror stories give us a guilt-free, blame-free reflection on the emotions.

Your experience is not everyone's experience. You seem to keep making that mistake.

I get a thrill from horror movies, but I was never beaten or maltreated by my family. Most people aren't.Your childhood was atypical. Stop falsely generalizing.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.

(23-08-2014 05:10 PM)Chas Wrote: Your experience is not everyone's experience. You seem to keep making that mistake.

I get a thrill from horror movies, but I was never beaten or maltreated by my family. Most people aren't.Your childhood was atypical. Stop falsely generalizing.

I hope it was atypical. Maybe I am over-sensitive due to lots of books I read. Seems to me literally everyone is less or more neurotic and would benefit from psychotherapy, even if just mildly as a mental hygiene. It is possible to raise children without ever breaking their will, empiricism, desires and internal drive. But we know very little about how such people would look like, or what are neurological differences. Molyneux raises his daughter that way, but she didn't have a brain scan yet. She also didn't have a single meltdown or freakout, he says.

Some forms of maltreatment aren't active, but passive and very difficult to track, such as not mirroring the baby's emotions face to face. I can only speculate how non-neurotic people behave, but I'll know when I meet one.

(23-08-2014 04:42 PM)Revenant77x Wrote: I consider myself to be a utilitarian but I have a definite liberal swing. I am also way more libertarian than you would guess (it is only to those that would scrap the entire system that I am considered a statist) On those Political grids I tend to be in the lower left-hand of the lower left hand quadrant, just above the anarchists funny enough). I think government should only do what it needs to do and nothing more. I am not a fan of the nanny state in any means, if you want to use drugs or eat fat so be it not for the government to decide, but I do think you need to counteract the corporate faction with an entity that is beholden to the people. Sadly right now the corporate interests seem to be gaining ground due to a traitorous Supreme Court, this being in America of course. I tend to favor Scandinavian approaches as they have the best result (always at the top of those lists of best places to live, lowest crime, best standard of living, least unemployment etc) however if you can show a better system that scales up as well as theirs does then you could convince me.

OK, I think I have better system, but at this point, it's anybody's guess how you would react. Can you have a look at it, please?
Think of it as something between Sweden and NASA. On second sight, it is more of a hi-tech open-source form of global camping. There's no money, you get the best that is available technically. It's an equation technology+resources/(population/square kilometers). Everyone gets accommodated, the question is how, the answer is... pretty expensive to find out, but probably worth it, depends on assessing resources of whole Earth.

It's a very alien system for anarcho-capitalists to understand. They are afraid of it, when there are no money, they lose all reference and start seeing communists everywhere. But it's just a high-tech camping. Yet they convinced me, if I want to convince them, I must not do it politically, because it's unfair to impose decisions on others. Fair point, I answered.

(23-08-2014 04:42 PM)Revenant77x Wrote: Pick a less incendiary example then, because for all intents and purposes you did compare me to the pro-slavers.

As to your point here, no I am asking how you achieve the current level of protection under your system. Honestly the fact that the Abolition movement had no plan for Negro employment is why it took 100 years after the civil war for them to gain equal rights. Repeating the same mistakes over and over is not productive.

Fair point. That's why I'm against spanking, people need to literally grow up different, political system change isn't enough.

(23-08-2014 06:29 PM)Luminon Wrote: OK, I think I have better system, but at this point, it's anybody's guess how you would react. Can you have a look at it, please?
Think of it as something between Sweden and NASA. On second sight, it is more of a hi-tech open-source form of global camping. There's no money, you get the best that is available technically. It's an equation technology+resources/(population/square kilometers). Everyone gets accommodated, the question is how, the answer is... pretty expensive to find out, but probably worth it, depends on assessing resources of whole Earth.

(23-08-2014 04:42 PM)Revenant77x Wrote: I consider myself to be a utilitarian but I have a definite liberal swing. I am also way more libertarian than you would guess (it is only to those that would scrap the entire system that I am considered a statist).

But, Rev, don't tell me you've forgotten the definition already?Statist. Noun.Anyone who believes in even slightly more governance than I do.

(23-08-2014 04:42 PM)Revenant77x Wrote: I think government should only do what it needs to do and nothing more.

I think that's a fairly common sentiment. I certainly agree. But there is, naturally, disagreement as to precise specifics, as is inevitable when more than one human being is involved in something.
(nuance, of course, is the great enemy of the True Believer...)

(23-08-2014 04:42 PM)Revenant77x Wrote: As to your point here, no I am asking how you achieve the current level of protection under your system. Honestly the fact that the Abolition movement had no plan for Negro employment is why it took 100 years after the civil war for them to gain equal rights. Repeating the same mistakes over and over is not productive.

Well; technically the Reconstructionists had a pretty comprehensive plan...

(23-08-2014 04:42 PM)Revenant77x Wrote: I consider myself to be a utilitarian but I have a definite liberal swing. I am also way more libertarian than you would guess (it is only to those that would scrap the entire system that I am considered a statist).

But, Rev, don't tell me you've forgotten the definition already?Statist. Noun.Anyone who believes in even slightly more governance than I do.

Yup first time I was ever called a Statist I was floored. I am so not an authoritarian type. One of the big reasons I hate Communism is because it always ends up as a Stalinist nightmare.

(23-08-2014 10:10 PM)cjlr Wrote:

(23-08-2014 04:42 PM)Revenant77x Wrote: I think government should only do what it needs to do and nothing more.

I think that's a fairly common sentiment. I certainly agree. But there is, naturally, disagreement as to precise specifics, as is inevitable when more than one human being is involved in something.
(nuance, of course, is the great enemy of the True Believer...)

Yeah, I realise that was kind of a "no shit sherlock" statement, but he did ask for a comprehensive overview of my politics. It's hard to do that without a few of those kinds of statements. Which is why I tried to expand on where I felt the line should be drawn. Nuance is hard to explain in an overview.

(23-08-2014 10:10 PM)cjlr Wrote:

(23-08-2014 04:42 PM)Revenant77x Wrote: As to your point here, no I am asking how you achieve the current level of protection under your system. Honestly the fact that the Abolition movement had no plan for Negro employment is why it took 100 years after the civil war for them to gain equal rights. Repeating the same mistakes over and over is not productive.

Well; technically the Reconstructionists had a pretty comprehensive plan...

It just didn't happen.

It was not as planned for as it should have been. Of course the problem was, as much as some people like to reimagine the past, freeing the slaves was not the primary reason (or hell even the tertiary reason) for fighting Civil war for most of the participants on either side. Anyway it was a rather large detail that was not accounted for by most people and certainly never had the support needed to actually achieve any lasting success. I think my point still stands though.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote: America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense

(23-08-2014 06:01 AM)Luminon Wrote: Well, you're the only one here who tries some activism with the system, that's showing some signs of life
So, how were you disciplined as a child? Were you negotiated with? Were you and your wishes respected?
How about the school system, how did you like that? 13 years or so, that's enough to form an opinion. What if you didn't want to go to school, or wanted to learn something else or just didn't like the way it was taught? How much would you pay for such a hotel stay or education course on free market?

Lumi, if you think I'm going to sit here and let you attempt to armchair psychoanalyze me with anything near the ineptitude you've shown at every other turn, you have to be out of your fucking mind.

I'd rather do something less painful and more productive with my time, like slamming my dick in the oven.

You know the rules...

...pics or it didn't happen.

See here they are, the bruises, some were self-inflicted and some showed up along the way. -JF